The bill (not law) you reference was first referred to the House five months later, but as far as I can tell was never passed in the Senate.
Unless you’re arguing the mere existence of a bill caused phone theft to drop precipitously, I think the argument stands that credit is due to Activation Lock (or whatever the equivalent is for Android, about which I am ignorant).
> Activation Lock (or whatever the equivalent is for Android, about which I am ignorant).
That's a different argument. One technology by one company, or the existence of a remote kill switch?
Android's ADM gained that ability in October 2013.
> The bill (not law) you reference was first referred to the House five months later, but as far as I can tell was never passed in the Senate.
Some states have implemented it, however [0], and the bill is still going back and forth federally. [1] THe upshot being phones manufactured in California have required a remote kill switch since 2013.
The mere existence of that law should cast doubt on the claim:
> Activation lock caused something like a sustained 50% drop in phone thefts the year it was implemented.
The bill (not law) you reference was first referred to the House five months later, but as far as I can tell was never passed in the Senate.
Unless you’re arguing the mere existence of a bill caused phone theft to drop precipitously, I think the argument stands that credit is due to Activation Lock (or whatever the equivalent is for Android, about which I am ignorant).